Talk:Pitcairn (transporter chief)
Name source What is the source of the name Pitcairn? Yarnek 14:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC) : I'm curious about that too. He's ubiquitously listed as "Transporter Chief". : of a deleted scene from that references a "Security Chief Pitcairn" serving aboard the "present day" Enterprise. I wonder if that is more than just a coincidence, and if the name was confused with and applied to the aforementioned "Transporter Chief" role, by whoever was doing whatever research that produced the current name association. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 19:44, August 3, 2017 (UTC) ::The Menagerie final draft script does indeed depict Pitcairn as serving on Kirk's Enterprise. However, the Star Trek Compendium and Star Trek Encyclopedia both credit Clegg Hoyt as Pitcairn. Pitcairn is also depicted as serving on Pike's Enterprise in Star Trek II Biographies, The Rift, Star Trek Early Voyages #1, The Children of Kings and Child of Two Worlds. --NetSpiker (talk) 00:54, August 4, 2017 (UTC) : It did appear in the old Star Trek Concordance (in "The Menagerie" cast section associated with the actor, but did not have its own entry, as I believe is the same case in the STE). I double checked The Making of Star Trek and The World of Star Trek (as they are really the only references that would predate the STC) and neither mention Pitcairn. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 12:27, August 4, 2017 (UTC) ;Followup: : After review of the evidence, I am now 100% certain that "Pitcairn" is not the Transporter Chief in "The Cage". Going by the hint from StarTrek.com (mentioned above) and crosschecking the script for "The Menagerie" alongside the same episode in play, it is quite clear that the Brett Dunham character was indeed intended to be "Pitcairn". At 22:25 in the episode (Part 1), two security guards enter the bridge, Dunham's character and Vinci. At the same stage in the script, it says: :* Elevator doors open and SECURITY CHIEF PITCAIRN and n.d. Second Guard enter fast, wondering what the problem is. :The next scripted line is: :* SECURITY CHIEF PITCAIRN (to Spock): "Yes sir?" :While the actual line spoken by Dunhan was, "Security reporting, Mr. Spock", the spirit of the scene and characters remain the same. : Later, following Spock's plea to Kirk at the end of the episode, was Dunham's next appearance, at timestamp 47:50, with Tom Lupo's character. Both are told to escort Spock to the brig by Kirk in the dialog, where in the script, the episode ends the scene with "Pitcairn" saying to Spock "we've orders to lock you up", what made the episode cut was (the more dramatic, imo) Kirk saying "lock him up" and the aforementioned two guards escorting Spock away. : In Part 2, the scene mentioned above from the StarTrek.com article, with more deleted "Pitcairn" lines, was shared with the same general scenes as succeed the deleted scene, and coincide with Dunham's next appearance in the episode. : So because there is more direct evidence supporting Security Chief Pitcairn than indirect evidence support Transporter Chief Pitcairn, I am going to move the characters information accordingly. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 23:20, August 16, 2017 (UTC) ::I oppose this. The identification of Pitcairn as the transporter chief played by Clegg Hoyt may have started out as a mistake by the Star Trek Concordance, but the sheer number of sources that agree with this identification means that it should be treated as fact. --NetSpiker (talk) 00:12, August 17, 2017 (UTC) : There's no "consensus", it is what it is. The script confirms this. The "grandfather clause" does not apply. And proper protocol is not to simply revert all my edits.--Alan del Beccio (talk) 00:42, August 17, 2017 (UTC) ::I don't know what grandfather clause you're referring to. There should always be consensus when making a major change like this (it's the equivalent of renaming a page). "It is what it is" is merely your opinion. You don't get to ignore proper procedure just because you're an admin. --NetSpiker (talk) 00:56, August 17, 2017 (UTC) ::Since none of Security Chief Pitcairn's lines from the script are the same as Brett Dunham's lines from the episode, you can't positively identify Dunham as Pitcairn. --NetSpiker (talk) 01:42, August 17, 2017 (UTC) :::I disagree, quite often lines get changed a little after the script is finished. But the scene itself stayed the same (the other characters involved, it is set on the bridge, the character still being from security). :::That said, wouldn't the STE naming the (unnamed) transporter chief as Pitcairn be enough under the Livingston clause? Kennelly (talk) 09:11, August 17, 2017 (UTC) ::The lines were completely changed and since there are two security guards, neither of them can be positively identified as Pitcairn. Maybe the guard that Gvsualan identified as Vinci was actually supposed to be Pitcairn (this actor played multiple characters on TOS). We just don't know. ::And yes, the Livingston clause does apply. Unless we can find production documents that identify Dunham as Pitcairn, I call for Pitcairn and all related pages to be restored to the way they were. --NetSpiker (talk) 09:33, August 17, 2017 (UTC) : First of all, you revert vandalism, not good faith edits, so don't confuse the issue. If I weren't 99.9% sure I was right, I would have never made the correction in the first place. : Also, a so-called "grandfather clause" is exactly what you're first-post argument states. I've proved something that has been merely "accepted" for 40+ years as being incorrect, with a primary source. That's not "my opinion", that's not supposition, that's fact. A fact, at this point, you have to disprove because by all statements, you are defending purely on your opinion, to paraphrase you, 'it must be that way for a reason, all these secondary sources must be feeding off the same teat, so it must be right.' That is by definition, speculation, on top of using an, at best, secondary source to disprove a primary source. : What's most clear of all is that you certainly didn't look closely at the evidence and this is most evident by your final argument, especially about Vinci, but at this point it is so painfully clear that you are merely grasping at straws, I wouldn't expect any less. : And yes, Kennelly is right. Minute differences were made in the dialog during shooting, almost every TOS script is that way, but the focus remains the same, all the characters are in the right place at the same time, with all the same ideas being conveyed (not "completely changed"), especially the lines that were spoken by both Dunham's character on screen/corresponding script "Pitcairn". Just because the majority of his character was written out of/cut from the filmed episode doesn't change the facts (look at Syvar, to name one). Screen Dunham/Script Pitcairn were both in the right places at the right times throughout. : Finally, the STC/STE only describe the name "Pitcairn" in the 'cast' section, there is never a true "Pitcairn" entry, nor is there a background note that say's 'Believe us, this is Pitcairn', as would support the Livingston clause. : Bottom line, if we didn't have the STC/STE telling us, if only in what equates to an offhand reference have you, that Hoyt's character was Pitcairn, then we would never have made that connection in the first place. I've browsed all the relevant call sheets for the entire shooting schedule for "The Cage" that involved the "Transporter Chief Pitcairn", multiple incarnations of the script, and simply put there is no "Pitcairn" in "The Cage" just "Transporter Chief". Why do I have to repeat myself. So, ignoring what we we've been spoon-fed, and by sticking to the MA policy of using script names for identifying unnamed characters, then there would be next to no doubt that this page as currently written would have always been "Security Chief Pitcairn". --Alan del Beccio (talk) 12:10, August 17, 2017 (UTC) ::You haven't proved anything incorrect with a primary source. TV shows and movies are primary sources. Scripts and reference books are both secondary sources. I don't know why you've chosen to accept 1 secondary source that says one of the security guards is Pitcairn instead of the many secondary sources that say Pike's transporter chief is Pitcairn. ::Claiming that my argument about Vinci is "merely grasping at straws" is not a refutation. Please try again. ::When I said the line was completely changed, I meant that every word was changed. "Yes sir?" and "Security reporting, Mr. Spock" are not the same line no matter how much you want them to be. Since none of the lines are the same it's impossible to tell whether Brett Dunham or Frank da Vinci was supposed to be Pitcairn. Both of them were "in the right places at the right times". ::It doesn't matter that the Encyclopedia doesn't have a true Pitcairn entry. It still identifies Clegg Hoyt as Pitcairn, which is all that's needed for the Livingston clause to apply. There is no source identifying Brett Dunham as Pitcairn. ::Regardless of which of the two guards were originally intended to be Pitcairn, right now Clegg Hoyt IS Pitcairn because that is identification used by the vast majority of sources. Anyone trying to look up Pitcairn is going to be thinking of the Transporter Chief on Pike's Enterprise. --NetSpiker (talk) 13:33, August 17, 2017 (UTC) : First of all, do not spam a bunch of other users accounts in an attempt to rally support. It's not appropriate. : Second, because you need to be spoon-fed your refutation, let me do all the work and repeat myself AGAIN: :* Actors Dunham and DaVinci entered the bridge on screen / In the script Pitcairn and N.D. Guard enter the bridge. :** Dunham speaks on screen / Pitcairn speaks in the script :*** And for fun, Dunham is a Lieutenant, DaVinci is a Crewman. :* Next Dunham's appearance, this time with actor Lupo, no actor daVinci. / In the script, still Pitcairn. :** This eliminates your Vinci theory. :** Every other Pitcairn appearance in the script corresponds with Dunhams appearance. :Stop wasting everyone's time with this. My bottom line above still stands. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 14:15, August 17, 2017 (UTC) ::Seems perfectly straightforward to me when you put it that way. Nice bit of detective work, Alan. Netspiker -thanks for "rallying" me, among others. --LauraCC (talk) 14:33, August 17, 2017 (UTC)